[Design] [Last call] Bug 5403: Re-importing/Re-subscribing to a Trashed item

[Morgen Sagen]

Well, it's complicated, but follow me on this:  :-)

Removing an item from a SmartCollection places that item in the  
Trash.  Items in the Trash don't appear in other SmartCollections.   
Moving an item out of the Trash causes the item to reappear in the  
SmartCollections it used to appear in.

If we alter the behavior in the case of an import, and that import  
moves an item out of the Trash, we would need to explicitly *remove*  
that item from all other SmartCollections.  This means the item is  
now in each of those collections' Exclusions list.  If the user then  
moves that item to the Trash and later moves that item out of the  
Trash, that item will *not* appear in the original collections, since  
the item is in their Exclusions lists.  As a result, the end result  
of moving an item out of the Trash is inconsistent, and depends on  
whether an item happened to have been 're-imported-while-in-the- 
Trash' at some point in the past.

I suggest we leave the behavior as it is, which is consistent: any  
time an item leaves the Trash, it re-joins its previous collections.

~morgen


On Apr 5, 2006, at 5:44 AM, Mimi Yin wrote:

> Morgen, do you have any issues with going with this proposal? We  
> would want the behavior to be consistent for both re-Subscribe and  
> re-Import.
>
> Please see original write-up for more background: http:// 
> lists.osafoundation.org/pipermail/design/2006-March/004358.html
>
> On Mar 15, 2006, at 5:10 PM, Jeffrey Harris wrote:
>
>> Hi Mimi,
>>
>>> So I think the right thing to do is to have the Import and Subscribe
>>> behave in accordance with Jeffrey's A proposal, which corresponds to
>>> Proposal #2 above: Remove the item from the Trash, but don't  
>>> restore it
>>> to all the collections it used to be a member of.
>>>
>>> And stick with the B proposal, which corresponds to Proposal #3  
>>> above:
>>> Remove the item from the Trash and restore it to all the  
>>> collections it
>>> used to be a member of, for when users explicitly remove an item  
>>> from
>>> the Trash or undo Trashing an item.
>>
>> Seems reasonable to me.  It does mean a bit more work for the sharing
>> layer, though.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Jeffrey
>> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
>>
>> Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list
>> http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design
>
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
>
> Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list
> http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design